An exigent circumstances entry and search has to be limited by the exigency, and this one was. (In this case, there was a hearing on a motion to suppress in state court before, and then the case was indicted federally, and the transcript of the state hearing was used. [Such is the penchant for the federal districts in New York to avoid suppression hearings. A hearing probably would have been easier than ordering and reading the transcript.]) United States v. Ashburn, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62656 (E.D. N.Y. May 5, 2014):<\/p>\n
… As such, in view of the facts of this case, the court concludes that the exigencies of the moment, as they reasonably appeared to the officers, permitted them\u2014and arguably compelled them\u2014to enter Laurent’s bedroom immediately and without a warrant in order to ensure that nobody was injured inside.
\n
\nThe court likewise rejects Laurent’s argument that the officers’ search exceeded the scope permissible under the Fourth Amendment. (See Laurent Mot. #1 at 11.) Where entry into a home is warranted under the exigent circumstances exception, the resulting search “must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.” Klump, 536 F.3d at 118. In other words, a generalized search for evidence of criminal activity cannot be predicated on exigent circumstances. See id. Here, the officers’ initial entry was necessitated by a need to ensure that nobody inside the room had been injured by the earlier gunshot. Laurent contends that the officers could have visually checked the interior of the bedroom by merely sticking their heads through the open doorway, and therefore violated Laurent’s rights once they stepped foot inside. (See Laurent Mot. #1 at 11.) This construction of the exigent circumstances exception is overly narrow. It was objectively reasonable for the officers to enter the room and conduct a brief but thorough search so as to satisfy themselves that nobody inside required assistance.8 (See Suppression Tr. at 10, 22-23 (noting the search lasted only a minute or two).) At a minimum, the officers were permitted to visually inspect the two hiding places where a victim might be concealed, as identified by Officer Hodos: inside the open closet and underneath the bed. (Suppression Tr. at 21.) Considering the totality of the circumstances as elucidated in Officer Hodos’s testimony before the state court, this court finds that the officers’ search of Laurent’s bedroom did not impermissibly exceed that which was objectively necessary to ensure that a victim was not injured inside.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"An exigent circumstances entry and search has to be limited by the exigency, and this one was. (In this case, there was a hearing on a motion to suppress in state court before, and then the case was indicted federally, … Continue reading